Grantland "How to fix the NHL"

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I think there would be plenty of incentive if there was no point for losers in OT (but still in SO). Especially within division or conference games. You'd stop the opposition from gaining any points by finding a way to end it in OT.

But your opponent in that game is only one of 6 or 7 other teams in your division. Therefore, what you gain by denying them a point is statistically worth only 1/6 or 1/7 of a point to you. Whereas by going for it, you risk losing a whole point in the standings that you would be certain to get by holding out for a shootout. Unless the odds are 6 or 7 to 1 in your favour, it's a foolish risk to take. And if the odds were that much in your favour, the game would never have gone to OT in the first place.

This is exactly why fewer games are decided in regulation than before the OTL point was introduced. The extra point is an incentive not to break a tie until the game is worth 3 points instead of 2. If you reserve the extra point for the shootout, then teams have the same incentive not to risk breaking the tie in OT.

[djsFlames]

Always thought of those ideas would be cool. But as for the draft, the bottom few teams that are stuck in the basement for a reason would have fans in rage at some 9th place team snatching up the 1st overall. There is such parity in the current league partly because those teams who fall out of it get some help for the future. But at the same time it is annoying to see teams (cough*nashvillecarolinatampabay) quietly letting the wheels fall off later in the year when they feel they are out of it.

Unfortunately North America is too large for the other idea. To take out conferences, that is. Even though nothing would be cooler to see than a provincial battle for the cup.

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by Miniac

I don't agree with this statement... Not every team.

Then you're delusional.

[GirlySports]

Just play 4-on-4 overtime indefinitely, a win is a win, a loss it a loss.

[djsFlames]

Continuous overtime is honestly the best part of hockey, post-april.

Longest game I witnessed in person was a double OTer. But man, it was fun. Wish we could have it all year.

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Just play 4-on-4 overtime indefinitely, a win is a win, a loss it a loss.

That would never work, games could go all night. And when you have airport deadlines to meet, you'd have teams not flying into town til the next day.

[ShaolinFlame]

Shocked it wasn't mentioned, but in case anyone was wondering the author is Sean McIndoe of DownGoesBrown fame.

[Psytic]

I think the former player presenting the cup idea could have hilarious results. "Uh sorry guys unfortunately all we could rustle up was Rocky Thompson to present the cup. Everyone else was busy."

[topfiverecords]

Just an FYI. The OHL is doing the maximum 10 fights per season rule. I wonder how that's going.

[PIMking]

Get rid of the shootout, however no stupid ass ties...

I loved the long OT games in the playoffs, earn a win and if you lose the long ot game that's your fault suck it up buttercup and this isn't Y league basketball and not everyone is a winner

[Anduril]

Big fan of the idea of treating the puck over the glass as an icing rather than a 2 minute penalty.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Get rid of the shootout, however no stupid ass ties...

I loved the long OT games in the playoffs, earn a win and if you lose the long ot game that's your fault suck it up buttercup and this isn't Y league basketball and not everyone is a winner

Yeah, let's have a 3 hour OT game in October in a game that really doesn't matter just so we can enjoy that great 'OT playoff hockey' we've come to know and love.

It's not realistic. There is set programming, time zones and a host of other issues that make this totally unfeasible during the regular season.

The shootout is here to stay.

[flamesfan1297]

in my opinion
1)overtime should be played 5 on 5 for five minuts and then 4 on 4 for another 5 minutes, then have a shootout
2)Bettman should still present the cup, thats the way it has always been
3) remove the instigator rule for wearing a visor, they want players to wear them for safety reasons, but then are punishing them for having them on
4) no loser point when a game goes into overtime

[blender]

An idea that has come up in discussion with friends is for the league to assess fines for infractions post-game based on video reviews. Have a fine schedule set: say, $1000 for a high-stick, a cross-check; $1500 for spear, butt-end $250 for obstruction?

I thought I heard of Rugby pro leagues doing something like this, but not sure.

[flamesfan1297]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Just an FYI. The OHL is doing the maximum 10 fights per season rule. I wonder how that's going.

That is a good idea, that i would like to see the NHL introduce as well

[scotty2hotty]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That draft idea is ######ed. Absolutely, totally, completely ######ed.

Not a big stretch to think it's your own intellect which is stopping you from grasping the concept.

[getbak]

Now that visors are mandatory for all new players, I'm pretty sure they announced that the instigator with a visor misconduct is gone.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by scotty2hotty

Not a big stretch to think it's your own intellect which is stopping you from grasping the concept.

No, he's right. The draft idea is ######ed and it has been discussed here before. All it does is encourage tanking until you are eliminated from the playoffs and then encourage all out winning. Teams that should be fighting for the 8th playoff spot would then be motivated to do a tank job earlier in the season to get eliminated and then win their way to a 1st overall pick.

Teams that can win games do not need the #1 draft pick as much as teams that cannot win games. The whole point of the draft system is to spread out the talent and help losing teams become winners. If this system were to kick in, it would leave truly bad teams in the basement for longer periods of time.

I think people are overly sensitive right now to teams tanking the season because the recent shortened season with a big draft attached to it caused some exceptional tanking. In a normal season I doubt that would happen to the same degree.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Wolven

No, he's right. The draft idea is ######ed and it has been discussed here before. All it does is encourage tanking until you are eliminated from the playoffs and then encourage all out winning. Teams that should be fighting for the 8th playoff spot would then be motivated to do a tank job earlier in the season to get eliminated and then win their way to a 1st overall pick.

Teams that can win games do not need the #1 draft pick as much as teams that cannot win games. The whole point of the draft system is to spread out the talent and help losing teams become winners. If this system were to kick in, it would leave truly bad teams in the basement for longer periods of time.

I think people are overly sensitive right now to teams tanking the season because the recent shortened season with a big draft attached to it caused some exceptional tanking. In a normal season I doubt that would happen to the same degree.

I think people are also vastly overestimating how many games there are after teams get eliminated. In 11-12 Montreal finished 28th in the league, yet it took until game 76 for them to get eliminated from the playoffs. Huge draft order decisions would be based on a team's performance over a 4-5 game sample rather than an 82 game one. Just an awful idea.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I think people are also vastly overestimating how many games there are after teams get eliminated. In 11-12 Montreal finished 28th in the league, yet it took until game 76 for them to get eliminated from the playoffs. Huge draft order decisions would be based on a team's performance over a 4-5 game sample rather than an 82 game one. Just an awful idea.

I would imagine, however, if the loser point is gone that teams would be eliminated sooner then they are now.